And how effective do you think it is in the situation we are dealing with at this time?
If “when they need them the most” happens to be in the few hours after your attack. Hitting the runways would have made the operation significantly more risky and for very little benefit. It would have been a dumb move, and It’s a little funny that so many Dopers are so bent on being angry at Trump that they want to “blame” him for not doing it.
I think John Mace addressed this. Which leads me to…
You should always jump in, because you never know how your ignorance might get fought. Thanks to your participation, you were reminded that Hillary Clinton is a well-known hawk and she wasn’t part of the administration when the red line was actually crossed. The latter fact I didn’t remember, so thank you for writing something that got me to post.
I have a similar beef to yours, but I believe there were many countries in the region such as the ones that comprise Europe and the Middle East that had a much bigger stake in the game but seemed completely unwilling to commit what was necessary to actually enforce a no fly zone and support the Syrian opposition effectively. I’m glad Obama and the military had the wisdom to scale down their goals and focus only on ISIS. I don’t mind if we intervene in countries like Syria, but I am tired of spending all the money and losing all the lives to do it.
Aren’t there all kinds of bombs designed to destroy runways? Aren’t there whole specialized units in the Army who have the mission of capturing or destroying runways? If you are trying to make sense of the Tomahawk attack in terms of debilitating Syria’s air force, don’t, it was to make Trump look good and send a warning that the chemical weapons attacks can’t continue.
You’re right of course, and I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.
I think it was intended to show that the US is not happy with the use of poison gas.
We’re not trying to change the course of the war, so the only thing really matters wrt this attack is whether or not Assad uses CWs again (while Trump is president). If he doesn’t, then this attack was probably successful. I suspect Assad won’t use CWs again (for awhile) as he can expect a larger, more damaging response next time. But we shall see.
n.b.: I’m still not saying I support the attack. I don’t. But let’s at least evaluate it for what it was.
I’ve never heard of the Army Runway Corps, and even if there was one, do you envision that we’d land the 100 guys there for 12 hours or so, and then fly them out!
The attack was a signal pure and simple, nothing more. I was just clarifying that bombing a 1 million dollar easily repairable runway isn’t as effective as destroying infrastructure and jet aircraft.
I don’t recall if the Durundal is still in US service, but it is an unguided bomb for use on runways that essentially drives a charge deeper underground to damage large chunks of runway so that it takes longer to repair. But I believe this weapon is only dropped by aircraft at low altitude, and is certainly not a feature of the Tomahawk.
Seriously, the Tomahawk would damage a runway for several hours. The Tomahawk destroys aircraft. There is no question whatsoever that using these missiles against runways would be like setting a $1 million pile of cash on fire, because the gratification is instant with no long term benefit.
That’s exactly the point. The attack was a “don’t use chemical weapons” signal. Nothing more. Not a “you can’t use this airbase ever again” signal. Not an “Assad must go” signal (no matter what our UN rep says). And definitely not a “now we’re at war with Assad” signal.
Not only does US not want to be at war with Assad, but we need Assad to be there. Not Assad the person necessarily but Assad the secular(ish) autocrat suppressing Islamic jihadists. If we could easily replace Assad with someone else with a different name and same goals, that would be great - but that’s not currently possible.
And if it was Assad using the chemical weapons (and I am not fully convinced it was), he will not use them again. There is no upside to it for him and definitely not for the Russians. And US will not bomb Syria again.
If it wasn’t Assad but the sarin was smuggled in and released to coincide with the Syrian (conventional) bombing run, I expect it to happen again. If it does, one indicator would be that it would happen in an area controlled by the same forces that controlled this Homs area this time.
I also expect that the Syrian government and Russians will be fully on alert for it and try to catch whoever is doing it in the act (although most probably if they do it will be dismissed as propaganda).
So, according to your C.T. analysis, the US bombed Assad’s airbase in order to teach the Syrian rebel forces a lesson?
What’s more, if it happens again, the US should not respond, because obviously anti-Putin/anti-Assad propaganda!
You make zero sense.
July 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry:
“With respect to Syria, we struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”
October 2014, Kerry:
"… people nevertheless have been critical — one day of bombing versus the virtue of getting 100 percent of the chemical weapons out of Syria.”
January, 2015, Susan Rice:
“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
… but this Sunday …
Tony Blinken, former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Adviser:
“We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration”
So - was it Kerry and Rice that blatantly lied? Or is Blinken?
US bombed Assad’s airbase to be seen to be doing something (and because I am pretty sure US doesn’t know 100% whose chemical weapons it was). It was a minimal response, largely symbolic, and will hopefully achieve its purpose of convincing the Assad regime not to use chemical weapons again if it did it this time.
If sarin use never happens again in Syria, I will be more convinced that it was Assad’s government that used it in Homs.
If it does, and it just happens to occur in an area controlled by the same forces as in this case, that will be an indicator that it was not Assad’s doing.
If you cannot trust the Russians to do the job, who can you trust?
Why does it even matter? The US is no more prepared to go and get the chemical weapons now than it was then.
That was the stated intention, yes.
How effective this particular move was in putting that point across is the question I asked, though. Was this the best course of action…or was this “At least they did something!”
Well, not Susan Rice.
Regards,
Shodan
If I accept the premise that “we had to do something”, I think this response was good. Whether or not it was the best of all possible responses is way beyond my knowledge as a civilian. I would be surprised if anyone on this MB could answer that question. Personally, I’m satisfied knowing that Mattis was the guy making the recommendation and not some Trump toady who could have been in that position instead.
Assad has used and continues to use C.W.'s
When you hear hoof beats, why assume zebras?
Why do you think that 20 (reported) Syrian planes destroyed are not sufficient in putting that point across? That’s a significant (~5%) percentage of their total capability and will cost them (or Russians) 100s of $millions to replace. That puts quite measurable cost on the use of chemical weapons, with a possible promise of escalated cost to consider in the future if that use is repeated.
I think the false flag thing is pretty ridiculous but sarin has been used pretty rarely to date by anyone. If we go 5 years without seeing it again, you can’t really take that as evidence of anything.
I think it struck a good balance between signaling to Assad to knock it off and minimizing risk to Americans and and minimizing the risk of a war with Russia. I haven’t heard anyone propose another course of action that seems better to me yet, but I’m not closed to the possibility that such a course exists.